hmm interesting points you make Cara. Not sure if it was the worst case of genocide the English engaged in, the great Irish Famine of '48 might be a contender for that title but what the heck don't want to argue over a throwaway line about a (war)game but there are a few points to note, all of which are highly contentious of course :
(1) more Scots fought for Cumberland at Culloden than for Charles. And when did killing people who charge at you across a field will huge great swords count as genocide?
(2) the highland clearances that followed later could be classed as a form of genocide (or ethnic cleansing by modern standards) and were largely engineered by clan chiefs wanting to make more money from sheep farming
(3) after the feudal clan system was consigned to history, Scotland never had it so good
(4) the Stuarts gave up their moral right to kingship a long time before James II abdicated and threw the great seal into the Thames making their claim to the throne null and void. The present model of constitutional monarchy ie. rule through and with the consent of, parliament was settled in 1688. If anything Charlese was seeking to create a absolute monarchy along the lines of the French kings - he was born and raised a French aristocrat. If he had won at Culloden, it is likely a third civil war would have followed and not some golden age freedom.
(5) "Butcher" Cumberland did give a "no quarter" order and so deserves the soubriquet (although at the time it was, I think, within the rules of continental warfare as understood at the time) - but the fact that the winner of any particular battle is an evil bastard doesn't make the loser a saint either. It is the lust for power which brings about these evils (imho) and I think the leaders on both sides were guilty of that.
Either way - I'm sorry if I offended you personally Caradir
